|
:: page 2 ::
Basic Split in Gitaistic Philosophy
This basic split in the Hindu philosophical thinking gave it a
schizoid personality. The Upanishads in their metaphysical
flights of speculative contemplation on the nature and destiny
of man went on to postulate the monistic universe- sarvam idam
khalu Brahman- but when it stepped out of this monistic
universe, a meticulously cultivated metaphysical cocoon into
the hard human reality, the followers of this philosophy had
no compunction in treating a section of their fellow beings as
worse than beasts. And this was most evident in the treatment
meted out to the Shudras or untouchables.
I think the Gitaistic philosophy of Lok Samgraha too could not
offer a way out of this anomalous situation created by the
Janus-like operation of the Hindu philosophy and its
distortionary social effects through the centuries. Even the
highest philosophy of nishkama karma could not but deteriorate
into self centred activity concerned pre-eminently with the
individual emancipation rather than social fellowship.
I refer here to the Verse V 14 in the Gita which says that the
sovereign self does not create for the people agency, nor does
he connect acts with their effects. It is nature that works
out these, Thus nature is made the sole detemining factor of
creation:
न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभु:|
न कर्मफल संयोगम स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते ||
It places not only the contemplation of the fruits of action
outside the purview of human judgment, but also the very human
action itself, because in a universe dominated by Nature man
is necessarily a puppet utterly incapable of initiating any
action of his own.It does not matter here whether he renounces
the fruits of this action or not. The question does not arise.
Whatever altruistic interpretation the Gita may be amenable to
or the metaphysical and philosophical consolation, it has
given to the suffering humanity-again severely demarcated
between high caste and low caste- one cannot but observe, that
it could not gain positive social currency, because
scripturally the society was already demarcated into rigid
castes, debarring the lowest even from entering the presence
of the higher castes.
In a casteist atmosphere the teaching of the Gita- its gospel
of Lok Samgraha, I could at best remain an instance of double
think incapable of translating itself into a socially oriented
ethic. In this context Dr. Schweitzer’s comment that Hinduism
in its early stages did not possess this active ethic and
that, what has occurred in modern India e.g. poverty, disease
and famine can be laid directly to this lack of an ethic in
those early stages is understandable.
I am pointing out to these philosophical shortcomings in order
to make clear the formidable difficulties and antagonisms
Shahu had to tackle in his quest to give an egalitarian deal
to his subjects at the dawn of the twentieth country. There is
another aspect of the Gitaistic philosophy of action which
does not seem to me quite acceptable. Somehow its tone appears
to put a self righteous premium on the fruits of action so
imperiously repudiated.
In fact, the very act of renunciation sounds like a
rationalization, and to put it a bit harshly, an hypocritical
arrogation of the fruits of action so renounced, of course,
impliedly. An activist interpretation was conspicuously
lacking till the advent of the Nineteenth country when
Vivekanand came “to the demoralized Hindu mind like a tonic”
as characterized by Jawaharlal Nehru.
... Continued
|
|
